I move that the Bill be read a second time. The Emergency Imposition of Duties Bill, 1932, required that every Order made by the Executive Council should be confirmed by Act of the Oireachtas within eight months after the making of the Order or it would cease to have statutory effect. The No. 5 Order was made on the 23rd December, 1932, and repealed the No. 1 Order, which was the main Order under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, and repealed the number of duties enforced under the No. 1 Order. The Order relates to duties on boots and shoes, and it operates to reduce or increase the particular duties as the case may be, so that there is only one duty on boots and shoes—a rate of 30 per cent. on the majority of these goods and 20 per cent. on others. In respect of men's and boys' shoes, it operated to abolish the preference in respect of English boots and shoes. In the case of motor cars, it reduced the maximum rate to the preferential rate, and it resulted in only one rate being enforceable on motor cars. In the case of fabricated steel and certain cast iron articles the preferential rate was increased to the full rate. The duty on coke and coal will be re-enacted. With regard to cement, it is intended when the Cement Bill becomes law to repeal by an Emergency Order the emergency duty upon cement because the import of cement will be regulated under that Bill. The Order also imposed a duty of 20 per cent. upon electrical apparatus imported from Great Britain. There were certain duties on sugar and saccharine, and a duty upon machinery of certain classes was maintained. There were exempted from duty printing machinery, machinery, for hosiery, boot making machinery, agricultural machinery, and mechanically propelled vehicles. It imposed a duty upon certain component parts of bicycles. Order No. 11 was entirely an Order for the repeal of duties mainly in consequence of the fact that these duties had been made permanent in the Finance Bill. We are advised, however, that it is necessary to confirm Order No. 11 despite that fact, because there is some reason to fear that if Order No. 11 were not confirmed, and if Order No. 5 were confirmed, that Order No. 5 would be in force in the form in which it was originally intended, whereas, in fact, it was considerably amended by Order No. 11. The passage of this Bill does not, of course, involve any change in respect of duties at present in operation.
Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.
The Minister mentioned steel. Does that cover leaf steel for the springs which coach builders import?
No.
What steel does it refer to?
The duty applies only to steel girders, bars, rods and angles. Certain springs for road vehicles are subject to duty under another Act and certain springs are exempted from duty, but this Order has nothing to do with that duty, nor was that duty imposed by this Order. It was imposed by a Financial Resolution.
Is not steel channel included in that?
Is the Deputy referring to cast-iron pipes, down pipes and so on?
What I am referring to really is steel channel pipes. Are they not also included in the section?
I do not think so. I do not want to be regarded as giving an authoritative opinion off-hand. The original emergency duty applied to all articles of steel and then by this Order it was repealed and the duty applied subsequently only to the specific articles mentioned in the Order itself.
I think the Minister will find that channel steel is included in it. It is too much to hope that the Minister left it out and that the gutter is now subject to only one duty.
Iron goods are now subject to only one duty.
They are not subject to two duties as heretofore in some cases?
No. There is only one duty, regardless of the origin of the goods.
It would be a good thing if the Minister hurried up the people who are making these goods here.
Despite the advance made there is still ground to be covered.
There are complaints from coach builders that there is a tariff imposed upon raw material for the making of springs and that the manufactured article is admitted free. That is the statement—that the raw material is liable to duty. They maintain that that gives work to people outside this country and takes it away from the people of this country.
I am not aware of that, but I am quite certain it is not the case, because the duty upon all articles, whether required for the construction of horse-drawn or motor vehicles, was ultimately imposed by agreement between the parties concerned.
Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—agreed to.